Any 1.2.3-r? will be less than 1.2.4, but anything 1.2.4 or higher
will be masked. (It does not matter if foo-1.2.4 actually exists
or not.)

The problem with that (which I don't believe would occur in this case, but it could happen) is that it wouldn't work if a 1.2.3.1 comes out. I believe that 1.2.3.1 is not a member of the ~1.2.3 set, which means that I want to mask it, but the expression you suggested would not do that.

is not optimal because 1.2.3.1 > 1.2.3-r99. There is no perfect solution with today's syntax. About the best you can do is choose the first version that is greater than the one you want to keep (whether it exists or not) and do a >= mask on that. For instance, in this hypothetical example, I would choose

Code:

>=foo-1.2.4

- John_________________I can confirm that I have received between 0 and 499 National Security Letters.

is not optimal because 1.2.3.1 > 1.2.3-r99. There is no perfect solution with today's syntax. About the best you can do is choose the first version that is greater than the one you want to keep (whether it exists or not) and do a >= mask on that. For instance, in this hypothetical example, I would choose

Code:

>=foo-1.2.4

- John

Thanks; I wasn't sure if 1.2.3.1 was wanted or not, and also thanks for the confirmation that there isn't a perfect solution at the time as I was going to dig into it. :)

curmudgeon wrote:

Chiitoo wrote:

Right now I can't think of a more proper way, but how about:

Code:

>some-category/foo-1.2.3-r99

That does seem like the best way (well, maybe -r9999) of accomplishing what I want.

So I guess I read it right, 1.2.3.1 was not wanted. Yeah, the r99 was just an example without knowing the package, and its versioning scheme at all.

If I'm right, that should keep you within the boundaries of the one version, and its revisions, until they go higher._________________Kind Regards,
~ The Noob Unlimited ~